[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6515079,"mediaKeyId","5020092-ed25f50bb7f5eeefaebf09dbfb5cdfc4","parentId",5020092,"title","Land‑use committee: roundup of adopted rezonings, PUDs and waivers (multiple items approved; several items deferred)","audioSeconds",3874,"startMs",1313000,"endMs",5187000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5020092-ed25f50bb7f5eeefaebf09dbfb5cdfc4&start=1313&end=5187","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5020092-ed25f50bb7f5eeefaebf09dbfb5cdfc4/thumbnail_1313000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6515079/Jacksonville/Duval-County/Florida/Landuse-committee-roundup-of-adopted-rezonings-PUDs-and-waivers-multiple-items-approved-several-items-deferred","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6515079-6d2551cb84afe2ef8bab5c4e4f103a54/orig.mp4?Expires=1771165973&Signature=Vy5qqp0dUaMHj98jKhZWaFK0jGnCaN7MLJVCoUftzThhEmbHmnL-gSfZYPlkWyCVGbov0U0umAuSDybhb5O~u~~srAp2DRYbiU0RaVbtFL6UJLTnRxdP4UuUem1rJoivI1wuEYX0DpKZSiSCe4d8MC4EI9-~Wp1ntFE46ZFp4W3c8hf3KQKPoVuxgoEaYU9OfrGjcex4ViEPtjrSvHU7OnZV1nQX7ZylGk61WqAX5IvObNivzLx7NkePvtyPoKPmGx9LrmdihknOSMF5kXGhmfMJHQZF2ccNBT0JiBrXjbg1MTjCBnxlFPqTtjgSxg4hCmETNJ1D62qLbK67ytSH8A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Jacksonville, FL","date","2025-06-17T00:00:00Z","article","The Jacksonville City Council Land Use & Zoning Committee approved a package of land‑use measures with little debate on individual items, and deferred several others for later hearings. Most bills passed unanimously (recorded committee votes were 6–0 where noted).

Key outcomes

- Ordinance 2025‑0177: Conventional rezoning approving roughly 8.4 acres from RLD‑60 to RLD‑40 (south of New Berlin Road). Planning staff recommended approval; Planning Commission had no speakers in opposition. Committee vote recorded as 6 yeas, 0 nays.

- Ordinance 2025‑0215: Substitute approved (revised legal description and map attached); committee voted to approve the substitute and re‑refer (6 yeas, 0 nays).

- Ordinance 2025‑0305 and 2025‑0306: A pair of conventional rezonings and land‑use amendments on Normandy Boulevard (approx. 4.09 acres) to expand a commercial node; staff recommended approval and the committee approved both ordinances (each recorded 6–0).

- Ordinance 2025‑0307 (large‑scale transmittal for 190.29 acres): The committee voted to transmit a land‑use amendment that would expand the suburban boundary and move acreage from agricultural/rural residential to low‑density residential (transmittal round). Planning staff recommended approval; the item will proceed to state review and then return to council for adoption round consideration. Committee recorded 6 yeas, 0 nays.

- Ordinance 2025‑0308: Adoption‑round text amendment adopting the updated Water Supply Facilities Work Plan required under state statute; staff recommended and the committee approved the text amendment (6 yeas, 0 nays).

- Ordinance 2025‑0309: PUD rezoning for a church campus seeking to remove two signage restrictions adopted in the 2020 PUD (to allow one externally illuminated monument sign and one changing message board on Gate Parkway). Planning staff recommended denial (citing the original conditions were intended to protect surrounding residential uses), but the Planning Commission recommended approval and the committee approved the amendatory motion and then the ordinance (6 yeas, 0 nays). The committee discussion focused on consistency with prior council conditions and whether the church and surrounding HOAs had been engaged; the applicant reported outreach and support from the adjacent associations.

- Ordinance 2025‑0310: Conventional rezoning to RLD‑50 for ~3.5 acres near Trout River Boulevard to allow single‑family lots (planning staff recommended approval; committee approved 6–0).

- Zoning Exception 2025‑0369 and 2025‑0370 (liquor/tasting rooms): The committee approved zoning exceptions that will permit on‑premise consumption in conjunction with retail liquor operations at two different sites (one a mixed food/entertainment campus and another a shores wine & spirits location with a proposed tasting room). In both cases the committee added or debated a condition tying approval to the companion waiver of minimum liquor‑distance where applicable; the committee ultimately approved those exceptions as noted (both recorded 6–0 where reported). Planning staff forwarded recommendations of approval subject to the condition that the exception not become effective unless required companion waivers (WLD) were issued where those waivers were necessary, and the committee discussed sequencing because the Planning Commission reviews the WLD applications.

Deferred or continued items

- Several items were deferred for later public hearings or further documentation: multiple PUDs and rezoning items (the committee listed items deferred to the July 15 hearing, including ordinances flagged in the agenda). One waiver was also scheduled to return to the Planning Commission prior to final committee action.

What the approvals mean

Most approved ordinances were consistent with planning staff recommendations and the Planning Commission votes cited in staff reports. Several items were transmittal‑round land‑use amendments (which go to state review before coming back for final adoption), and approvals now move those applications forward to either state review (large‑scale transmittals) or to the next permitting and site‑plan steps (conventional rezonings and PUDs). Planning staff repeatedly noted that specific infrastructure, drainage and traffic mitigation measures are reviewed at civil plan or PUD site‑plan stages and that the committee’s votes set the planning framework rather than detailed construction approvals.

A note on process

Committee members and staff repeatedly emphasized that transmittal votes send proposals to state agencies for technical review; the committee’s adoption vote is not the last step for those applications. Items that raised community concern — particularly where neighborhood associations asked for more outreach or where infrastructure (drainage, traffic) is not yet resolved — were deferred or will require additional rounds of review before final approvals or permits are issued.

Selected actions (committee vote tallies recorded in transcript)

- 2024‑0539 (PUD, Stockton Street) — approved as amended (6 yeas, 0 nays).
- 2025‑0177 (Conventional rezoning, 8.4 acres) — approved (6 yeas, 0 nays).
- 2025‑0215 (Substitute and re‑refer) — substitute passed (6 yeas, 0 nays).
- 2025‑0305 / 2025‑0306 (Normandy commercial land‑use/residential rezonings) — both approved (6 yeas, 0 nays).
- 2025‑0307 (Large‑scale transmittal, 190.29 acres) — transmit to state agencies (6 yeas, 0 nays).
- 2025‑0308 (Water Supply Facilities Work Plan adoption text amendment) — approved (6 yeas, 0 nays).
- 2025‑0309 (Crossroad Church signage PUD amendment) — approved (6 yeas, 0 nays) after committee amendment.
- 2025‑0310 (Conventional rezoning near Trout River Boulevard) — approved (6 yeas, 0 nays).
- 2025‑0369 / 2025‑0370 (Zoning exceptions for on‑premise alcohol) — approved (committee recorded votes as shown in transcript; companion WLD applications were discussed and in some cases scheduled for Planning Commission hearing).

The committee recorded a number of additional deferrals and noted that items will return with revised exhibits, additional legal descriptions or after Planning Commission action on companion waivers. Members asked applicants in several cases to continue community outreach or provide additional technical materials (traffic, drainage or updated liquor‑distance surveys) ahead of final adoption votes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of Jacksonville, FL - Land Use & Zoning Committee - Jun 17, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","At the same meeting the committee approved multiple land‑use bills with limited discussion, including rezonings, a water‑supply plan update, a church signage PUD amendment and zoning exceptions for alcohol uses. Several items were deferred to July 15 for further review.","taxTitle","Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida","taxId",2881,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6515082,"Council approves rezoning for five single-family lots on Stockton Street after parking mitigation condition",2860,139000,2999000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5020092-ed25f50bb7f5eeefaebf09dbfb5cdfc4&start=139&end=2999","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5020092-ed25f50bb7f5eeefaebf09dbfb5cdfc4/thumbnail_139000.jpg","/articles/6515082/Jacksonville/Duval-County/Florida/Council-approves-rezoning-for-five-single-family-lots-on-Stockton-Street-after-parking-mitigation-condition","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6515082-dbf693a115d99c8f991b53024d6f02b0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771165973&Signature=A4XrsOAZzhltOPL7f6HGvJHxg5VaTNPSUb2f~UCMeWw3oIoEApVtWGuztJGdaMF3J7NxfljQuyFTnnnKVJw65FpAiDkf2JOSE~1s0OkspMHdFzMXiwWOEOrZKiuxWAlpoNtPlSmgfoyy-yr4pS3QO72iNEmmkQPOgUHjBo-eG9i7BvsOm~McBCjqVTX3r4BLZdz04voQUUkyXgOIu3VYXzh7OfCVVonqom7WSzl-e0TpOl0skWpDPBlreyzT2l2MSZhEzLzNm0dEbolth8bKAPIkF2iyE4qLNUXuuuJ9JJ7RGKri01vzzzK4bRhziLuAKwvzefwBvbd4AjS7t4NFwg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Jacksonville City Council voted 6-0 to approve PUD rezoning ordinance 2024-0539, allowing a developer to reconfigure a 0.23-acre parcel along Stockton Street in the Riverside‑Avondale historic overlay into five single‑family residential lots. The council attached a condition directing the applicant to \"minimize the impact on parking to the extent practicable\" during construction.

The rezoning replaces a prior 2009 PUD that allowed multifamily and commercial uses on the site and would reduce the site’s theoretical trip generation (staff and the applicant contrasted roughly 800 daily trips for a three‑story commercial development with about 50 daily trips from five houses). Planning staff recommended approval, finding the new PUD consistent with the city’s 2045 Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the Riverside‑Avondale overlay, and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval after hearing opposition testimony at its August hearing.

Neighbors and local business owners gave extended public comment opposing the proposal, citing worries about parking, flooding and pedestrian safety. Thomas Licato, who identified himself as a resident of the nearby John Gory condominium, said the proposed 30‑foot‑tall row homes would “change the nature of the historic district” and exacerbate parking and traffic problems on Stockton. Garth (Ernest) Cooper, owner of a nearby bicycle shop, told the committee the block already has limited parking and asked the city to consider preserving the parcel as green space. Zach Barnett, owner of Bold Bean Coffee, said increased impervious surface could worsen local flooding. Scott Crowley of Focus Physical Therapy said his practice serves many older patients and described crossings where water already pools and visibility and safety are concerns.

The applicant, Greg Matovina, and his representatives told the committee the proposal is consistent with the neighborhood’s character and that the site plan shows detached single‑family dwellings that would be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. Matovina also said the current development rights for the parcel allowed commercial uses with no required parking, and that the proposed PUD would maintain the existing parking approach: on‑street parking in vehicle use areas (VUA) of the right of way.

Council members pressed the applicant about mitigation during construction. Councilman Miller reported what he said were 35 parking spaces currently serving the businesses across Stockton, and said “20 spaces… will be taken offline for a year or more for the construction,” leaving only about 15 regular spaces during work. Several council members asked whether the developer could stage construction to remove only some spaces at a time, provide valet or other temporary parking relief, or otherwise coordinate to protect nearby businesses and the physical‑therapy patients who rely on proximate parking. The applicant said he could not commit to a fixed number of spaces to be taken out of service at any time, but offered to “minimize to the extent practical the impact on the parking during the construction timeframe,” and said the sequencing could be coordinated so not all spaces would be taken out simultaneously when possible.

Council members debated whether the PUD could be conditioned to require on‑site parking for the future homes; planning staff told the committee that the existing PUD language and the Riverside‑Avondale overlay allow deviations from parking standards and that the current entitlement also did not require additional on‑site parking. Some council members said they favored the rezoning as a down‑zoning relative to the existing commercial entitlement, noting that commercial redevelopment could generate far more trips, while others urged stronger, enforceable mitigation for businesses. The committee adopted a compromise amendment — a condition that the developer minimize parking impacts \"to the extent practicable\" during construction — offered as language the applicant accepted, and then approved the rezoning as amended.

The council’s action was unanimous (6 yeas, 0 nays). The ordinance as amended requires subsequent compliance with site plan, historic review and civil plan review (including drainage) during permitting. Planning staff advised that drainage and flood‑control measures will be reviewed at civil plan stage and that the site is not in a mapped flood zone, but that civil review must ensure the development does not increase runoff onto neighboring properties.

Votes at the meeting, public comment and technical staff materials indicate the primary outstanding issues for implementation are (1) construction sequencing and parking mitigation while utility work and roadway restoration occur, (2) civil plan drainage review to control runoff, and (3) review by the Historic Preservation Commission for the design of each proposed dwelling. Council members and the applicant agreed to continue discussions about construction sequencing and coordination with JEA and Public Works before and during construction.

For neighbors, the central unresolved concerns were practical: how many on‑street spaces would be lost at any given time, how long construction would disrupt the businesses on Stockton, and whether the increase in impervious surfaces would affect existing drainage problems at the nearby crosswalks and intersections. The developer and planning staff said those operational details will be handled during the civil and permitting stages.

The council’s approval moves the project to the site‑plan and permitting phases; any change to the PUD or to the condition agreed by the developer would require a future council action.","Jacksonville City Council voted 6-0 to approve PUD rezoning ordinance 2024-0539 to allow five single-family homes on a 0.23-acre parcel in the Riverside‑Avondale overlay, adding a condition that the developer \"to the extent practicable\" minimize parking impacts during construction.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Land‑use committee: roundup of adopted rezonings, PUDs and waivers (multiple items approved; several items deferred)

Council approves rezoning for five single-family lots on Stockton Street after parking mitigation condition